1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 ADRIAN JOHNSON, Case No. 2:18-cv-00647-GMN-EJY
5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 SGT D. HOLMS, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Adrian Johnson’s First Request for Production of Documents 11 (ECF No. 38); Request to Add Parties and Serve Notice of Summons upon Unexecuted Summonses 12 (ECF No. 39); Motion to Amend to Serve Notice of Summons upon Unexecuted Summonses (ECF 13 No. 41); and, Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 47). Defendants did not 14 file oppositions to any of Plaintiff’s Motions.1 The Court finds as follows. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at the Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”), alleges that he 17 suffered a beating, loss of property during a cell extraction, transfers to administrative segregation 18 and the mental health ward, and threats in retaliation for filing grievances against Defendants who 19 are all CCDC correctional officers. On May 15, 2019, Judge Navarro screened Plaintiff’s operative 20 Amended Complaint and allowed the following claims to proceed: (i) Plaintiff’s First Amendment 21 retaliation claim, (ii) Fourteenth Amendment excessive force, due process property, and denial of 22 access to the grievance procedure claims, and (iii) supervisory liability claim asserted against 23 variously situated Defendants. ECF No. 10 at 8:10–19. Pertinent to this discussion, the May 15, 24 2019 Order instructed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Defendants Garza and Lt. Murphy, 25 among others. Id. at 8:23. 26 27 1 On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff’s summonses for Defendants Murphy and Garza were returned 2 unexecuted. ECF No. 14. On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Serve Defendants, requesting 3 the Court order another attempt of service on Murphy and Garza. ECF No. 18. On July 8, 2019, 4 Judge Foley granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Defendants, ordering 5 “[c]ounsel for the LVMPD Defendants . . . to inform the Court whether [they] will accept service on 6 behalf of Lt. Murphy and Garza.” ECF No. 26 at 1:26–28. In the event defense counsel were unable 7 to accept service on behalf of Murphy and/or Garza, they were ordered to “inform the Court if 8 Plaintiff has provided enough information to identify the defendants and if their last known addresses 9 are available.” Id. at 2:1–2. 10 On July 30, 2019, defense counsel responded that they had reviewed Plaintiff’s inmate 11 records and believed that:
12 Plaintiff did not correctly identify “Garza.” The three corrections officers identified in [the] Incident Report are Officers Binko P8227, Heise P14527 and 13 Corona P14956. As such, [and Binko and Heise already having been served,] counsel believes the corrections officer Plaintiff is referring to may be Officer 14 Corona. Counsel also reviewed the staff logs for this date and determined there is no “Garza” identified on those logs. Counsel is not authorized to accept service on 15 behalf of Officer Corona in the event he is named as a defendant. Service may be effectuated upon Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department . . . . 16 With respect to Lt. Murphy; Lt. Murphy is now retired from LVMPD. However, counsel has contacted Lt. Murphy and has been authorized to accept 17 service on behalf of Retired Lt. Murphy only. 18 ECF No. 31 at 2:1–10. 19 On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Request to Add Parties and Serve Notice of 20 Summons upon Unexecuted Summonses, seeking service on both Defendants Murphy and Garza. 21 ECF No. 36. On January 2, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s request, noting that 22 “defense counsel is authorized to accept service [on behalf of Murphy]. . . . Plaintiff also seeks 23 service on ‘Garza’; however, defense counsel states that there is no individual by this name correctly 24 identified in this action. . . . Instead, defense counsel believes Plaintiff is referring to Officer 25 Corona.” ECF No. 37 at 1:13–15 (internal citations omitted). The Court therefore ordered that a 26 copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be served on Defendant Murphy, and gave Murphy 21 days 27 from the issuance of the Order to file his responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Id. 1 to his Amended Complaint for the sole purpose of adding Defendant Officer Corona[, stating that 2 n]o other amendment to the operative Amended Complaint . . . shall be considered by the Court.” 3 Id. at 1:25–27. The instant Motions followed. 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 A. Plaintiff should serve his Request for Production of Documents on Defendants. 6 Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents is governed by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules 7 of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) states that “[a] party may 8 serve on any other party a request [for production of documents]” (emphasis added), and Fed. R. 9 Civ. P. 34(b)(2) provides that “the party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing 10 within 30 days after being served.” Plaintiff should, therefore, serve such requests upon Defendants, 11 which he can do by mailing a copy to the lawyer for Defendants. Plaintiff should not file his 12 discovery requests with the Court. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motions for Production 13 of Documents. ECF No. 38.
14 B. Defense counsel is required to identify “O. Cardiena” and advise the Court whether they will accept service on behalf of this individual. 15 In his Motion to Add Parties and serve Notice of Summons, Plaintiff seeks to have his 16 Amended Complaint served on Officer “O. Cardiena” in lieu of Officer Corona. ECF No. 39. 17 Plaintiff explains that he now remembers that this defendant was named “O. Cardiena,” and “most 18 definitely not . . . Lt. Corona as the attorney for the defendants noted.” Id. at 1:23–26. Plaintiff 19 repeats these allegations in his Motion to Amend to Serve Notice of Summons upon Unexecuted 20 Summonses. ECF No. 41 at 3:5–7. 21 There having been no opposition, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Parties and 22 serve Notice of Summons (ECF No. 39) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend to Serve Notice of 23 Summons upon Unexecuted Summonses (ECF No. 41) to the extent the motions require defense 24 counsel to identify “O. Cardiena” and to inform the Court whether they will accept service on behalf 25 of this individual. If defense counsel is unable to accept service on behalf of “O. Cardiena,” defense 26 counsel must inform the Court if Plaintiff has provided enough information to identify this defendant 27 and if his or her last known address is available. The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motions to the extent 1 they ask the Court to serve his Amended Complaint on “O. Cardiena” before he or she has been 2 properly identified, and before defense counsel have stated whether they will accept service on this 3 person’s behalf.
4 C. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief must be denied because it is overly broad. 5 A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy . . . never awarded as of 6 right.” Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (internal citations omitted). Under the 7 Supreme Court’s four-prong test in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., “[a] plaintiff 8 seeking a preliminary injunction [or temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to 9 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 10 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 555 11 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (internal citations omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 ADRIAN JOHNSON, Case No. 2:18-cv-00647-GMN-EJY
5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.
7 SGT D. HOLMS, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiff Adrian Johnson’s First Request for Production of Documents 11 (ECF No. 38); Request to Add Parties and Serve Notice of Summons upon Unexecuted Summonses 12 (ECF No. 39); Motion to Amend to Serve Notice of Summons upon Unexecuted Summonses (ECF 13 No. 41); and, Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 47). Defendants did not 14 file oppositions to any of Plaintiff’s Motions.1 The Court finds as follows. 15 I. BACKGROUND 16 Plaintiff, an inmate housed at the Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”), alleges that he 17 suffered a beating, loss of property during a cell extraction, transfers to administrative segregation 18 and the mental health ward, and threats in retaliation for filing grievances against Defendants who 19 are all CCDC correctional officers. On May 15, 2019, Judge Navarro screened Plaintiff’s operative 20 Amended Complaint and allowed the following claims to proceed: (i) Plaintiff’s First Amendment 21 retaliation claim, (ii) Fourteenth Amendment excessive force, due process property, and denial of 22 access to the grievance procedure claims, and (iii) supervisory liability claim asserted against 23 variously situated Defendants. ECF No. 10 at 8:10–19. Pertinent to this discussion, the May 15, 24 2019 Order instructed the Clerk of Court to issue summonses for Defendants Garza and Lt. Murphy, 25 among others. Id. at 8:23. 26 27 1 On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff’s summonses for Defendants Murphy and Garza were returned 2 unexecuted. ECF No. 14. On June 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Serve Defendants, requesting 3 the Court order another attempt of service on Murphy and Garza. ECF No. 18. On July 8, 2019, 4 Judge Foley granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Defendants, ordering 5 “[c]ounsel for the LVMPD Defendants . . . to inform the Court whether [they] will accept service on 6 behalf of Lt. Murphy and Garza.” ECF No. 26 at 1:26–28. In the event defense counsel were unable 7 to accept service on behalf of Murphy and/or Garza, they were ordered to “inform the Court if 8 Plaintiff has provided enough information to identify the defendants and if their last known addresses 9 are available.” Id. at 2:1–2. 10 On July 30, 2019, defense counsel responded that they had reviewed Plaintiff’s inmate 11 records and believed that:
12 Plaintiff did not correctly identify “Garza.” The three corrections officers identified in [the] Incident Report are Officers Binko P8227, Heise P14527 and 13 Corona P14956. As such, [and Binko and Heise already having been served,] counsel believes the corrections officer Plaintiff is referring to may be Officer 14 Corona. Counsel also reviewed the staff logs for this date and determined there is no “Garza” identified on those logs. Counsel is not authorized to accept service on 15 behalf of Officer Corona in the event he is named as a defendant. Service may be effectuated upon Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department . . . . 16 With respect to Lt. Murphy; Lt. Murphy is now retired from LVMPD. However, counsel has contacted Lt. Murphy and has been authorized to accept 17 service on behalf of Retired Lt. Murphy only. 18 ECF No. 31 at 2:1–10. 19 On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Request to Add Parties and Serve Notice of 20 Summons upon Unexecuted Summonses, seeking service on both Defendants Murphy and Garza. 21 ECF No. 36. On January 2, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s request, noting that 22 “defense counsel is authorized to accept service [on behalf of Murphy]. . . . Plaintiff also seeks 23 service on ‘Garza’; however, defense counsel states that there is no individual by this name correctly 24 identified in this action. . . . Instead, defense counsel believes Plaintiff is referring to Officer 25 Corona.” ECF No. 37 at 1:13–15 (internal citations omitted). The Court therefore ordered that a 26 copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be served on Defendant Murphy, and gave Murphy 21 days 27 from the issuance of the Order to file his responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Id. 1 to his Amended Complaint for the sole purpose of adding Defendant Officer Corona[, stating that 2 n]o other amendment to the operative Amended Complaint . . . shall be considered by the Court.” 3 Id. at 1:25–27. The instant Motions followed. 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 A. Plaintiff should serve his Request for Production of Documents on Defendants. 6 Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents is governed by Rule 34 of the Federal Rules 7 of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”). Specifically, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) states that “[a] party may 8 serve on any other party a request [for production of documents]” (emphasis added), and Fed. R. 9 Civ. P. 34(b)(2) provides that “the party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing 10 within 30 days after being served.” Plaintiff should, therefore, serve such requests upon Defendants, 11 which he can do by mailing a copy to the lawyer for Defendants. Plaintiff should not file his 12 discovery requests with the Court. Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motions for Production 13 of Documents. ECF No. 38.
14 B. Defense counsel is required to identify “O. Cardiena” and advise the Court whether they will accept service on behalf of this individual. 15 In his Motion to Add Parties and serve Notice of Summons, Plaintiff seeks to have his 16 Amended Complaint served on Officer “O. Cardiena” in lieu of Officer Corona. ECF No. 39. 17 Plaintiff explains that he now remembers that this defendant was named “O. Cardiena,” and “most 18 definitely not . . . Lt. Corona as the attorney for the defendants noted.” Id. at 1:23–26. Plaintiff 19 repeats these allegations in his Motion to Amend to Serve Notice of Summons upon Unexecuted 20 Summonses. ECF No. 41 at 3:5–7. 21 There having been no opposition, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Parties and 22 serve Notice of Summons (ECF No. 39) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend to Serve Notice of 23 Summons upon Unexecuted Summonses (ECF No. 41) to the extent the motions require defense 24 counsel to identify “O. Cardiena” and to inform the Court whether they will accept service on behalf 25 of this individual. If defense counsel is unable to accept service on behalf of “O. Cardiena,” defense 26 counsel must inform the Court if Plaintiff has provided enough information to identify this defendant 27 and if his or her last known address is available. The Court denies Plaintiff’s Motions to the extent 1 they ask the Court to serve his Amended Complaint on “O. Cardiena” before he or she has been 2 properly identified, and before defense counsel have stated whether they will accept service on this 3 person’s behalf.
4 C. Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief must be denied because it is overly broad. 5 A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy . . . never awarded as of 6 right.” Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (internal citations omitted). Under the 7 Supreme Court’s four-prong test in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., “[a] plaintiff 8 seeking a preliminary injunction [or temporary restraining order] must establish that he is likely to 9 succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, 10 that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” 555 11 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (internal citations omitted). Generally, the Winter test requires “plaintiff to make 12 a showing on all four prongs.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th 13 Cir. 2011). Importantly, “[i]njunctive relief must be tailored to remedy the specific harm alleged, 14 and an overbroad preliminary injunction is an abuse of discretion.” Winter, 508 F.3d at 886. That 15 is, “injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant[s] than necessary to provide 16 complete relief to the plaintiff[].” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979). 17 Here, Plaintiff asks the Court to issue a preliminary injunction preventing Defendants from 18 placing Plaintiff in “irreparable harm” and inflicting “cruel and unusual punishment” against him. 19 ECF No. 47 at 1–2. This request lacks the specificity required for issuance of injunctive relief under 20 Winter. Plaintiff cites, inter alia, the confiscation of his legal documents during a cell extraction, 21 moves back and forth between administrative segregation, deprival of hygienic functions, and 22 continued denials of grievances as justifications for the issuance of injunctive relief against 23 Defendants. Id. at 2–7. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief remains too broad. 24 The Court therefore denies Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction. 25 ECF No. 47. 26 III. CONCLUSION 27 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents (ECF 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Add Parties and Serve Notice of 2 Summons upon Unexecuted Summonses (ECF No. 39) and Motion to Amend to Serve Notice of 3 Summons upon Unexecuted Summonses (ECF No. 41) are GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. 4 a. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defense counsel will identify “O. Cardiena” and 5 inform the Court whether they will accept service on behalf of this individual within 6 15 days of the date of this Order. 7 b. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if defense counsel does not accept service on 8 behalf of “O. Cardiena,” defense counsel must inform the Court whether Plaintiff has 9 provided enough information to identify this defendant and if his or her last known 10 address is available. 11 c. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no other amendments to Plaintiff’s Amended 12 Complaint shall be permitted after this defendant has been properly identified and 13 served. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary 15 Injunction (ECF No. 47) is DENIED. 16 DATED this 3rd day of March, 2020. 17
19 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20
23 24 25 26 27